From: Michael S. Lorrey (retroman@turbont.net)
Date: Fri Mar 17 2000 - 16:38:36 MST
Joe Dees wrote:
>
> >Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 16:41:29 -0500
> >From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <retroman@turbont.net>
> >To: extropians@extropy.com
> >Subject: Re: [GUNS\ Re: g*n c*ntr*l
> >Reply-To: extropians@extropy.com
> >
> >Joe Dees wrote:
> >>
> >> >Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 08:01:54 -0500
> >> >From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <retroman@turbont.net>
> >> >To: extropians@extropy.com
> >> >Subject: Re: [GUNS\ Re: g*n c*ntr*l
> >> >Reply-To: extropians@extropy.com
> >> >
> >> >"Joe E. Dees" wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Without an easily accessible purchase-prohibited registry which
> >> >> must be checked prior to sale, such laws are unenforceable,
> >> >> especially as regards to violent criminals who have done their time,
> >> >> and MOST especially as to violent repeat offenders who have
> >> >> served their sentences, but also including those who have
> >> >> restraining orders issued against them, and the incompetent or
> >> >> insane.
> >> >
> >> >If they have done their time, and are rehabilitated, they are no longer
> >> >a threat to society, so once their parole period is up, give them back
> >> >their rights. If they are a threat, don't let them out of prison. This
> >> >is such a simple concept.
> >> >
> >> >Mike Lorrey
> >> >
> >> Then you are on record as advocating life without possibility of parole for anyone convicted of using a gun in a crime?
> >
> >If they have been ajudged by a parole board to no longer be a threat to
> >society, then give them back their rights. If they remain a threat to
> >society, then lock them away for keeps, or at least until a parole board
> >does make a rehabilitated decision.
> >
> If you are willing to trust the decisions of a parole board, you must also trust > in the good faith of other agencies, including mental competency boards and judges > issuing restraining orders. One cannot cherry-pick which of these to and not to > trust based upon preconception-based preferences - they are all populated by > people.
Parole boards are comprised of private citizens, not government
bureacrats. Parole boards, as they are currently constituted, are more
concerned with keeping prison populations down.
The thing is Joe, I SHOULD be able to trust the government. The reason I
don't isn't because of me. They have demonstrated enough times in this
administration that they have no respect for the law or the individual.
> Although simply showing a gun in the commission of a crime may not be grounds
> for life imprisonment, I'm in favor of permanent lock-up of violent gun-wielding
> criminals who commit crimes resulting in firearm injury or death to others, for
> they have proven themselves capable of such actions by performing them; then the
> prospect of deaths from mistaken rights restoration to violent criminal
> recidivists never enters in.
A good point. What about situations where a person was defending
themselves, but didn't follow all of the points of the law in properly
injuring or killing a criminal in the proper and legal way?
> To pull the trigger on another human being in the
> commission of a crime should be to kill your own freedom to have the opportunity
> to do the same again for the rest of your life.
It should. It does indicate that you have no respect for the right to
life of the other person, which is why self defense with deadly force is
justified in such circumstances. A person who has no value for the right
to life of others doesn't have value for their own.
Use of deadly force in the commission of a felony should be a capital
crime. Just because the crook got lucky and didn't actually kill anyone
is irrelevant. They were prepared to do so, and so mark themselves as
mere animals to be put down.
Mike Lorrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:27:28 MST